Best Available Evidence in Cochrane Reviews on Herbal Medicine?

Cochrane reviews are considered by many to be the “gold standard” or the final word in medical conversation on a topic. We explored the eleven most relevant Cochrane reviews on herbal medicine and identified that frequently herbal medicines in the included studies had not been sufficiently well characterised. If data on the effects of the plant parts are unavailable, effects of co-active ingredients need to be considered and the plausibility of the study medications for the specific indications discussed. Effect sizes calculated from exploratory studies would be best used to determine the sample sizes required for future confirmatory studies, rather than as definitive reports of intervention effects. Reviews should be comprehensive, including discussion of putative adverse events and possible drug interactions. We suggest that the guidelines for preparing Cochrane reviews be revised and offer assistance in this task

Efficacy and Safety of Pomegranate Medicinal Products for Cancer

Preclinical in vitro and in vivo studies demonstrate potent effects of pomegranate preparations in cancer cell lines and animal models with chemically induced cancers. We have carried out one systematic review of the effectiveness of pomegranate products in the treatment of cancer and another on their safety. The PubMed search provided 162 references for pomegranate and cancer and 122 references for pomegranate and safety/toxicity. We identified 4 clinical studies investigating 3 pomegranate products, of which one was inappropriate because of the low polyphenol content. The evidence of clinical effectiveness was poor because the quality of the studies was poor. Although there is no concern over safety with the doses used in the clinical studies, pomegranate preparations may be harmful by inducing synthetic drug metabolism through activation of liver enzymes. We have analysed various pomegranate products for their content of anthocyanins, punicalagin, and ellagic acid in order to compare them with the benchmark doses from published data. If the amount of coactive constituents is not declared, patients risk not benefiting from the putative pomegranate effects. Moreover, pomegranate end products are affected by many determinants. Their declaration should be incorporated into the regulatory guidance and controlled before pomegranate products enter the market

Long-term safety of drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: Evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis

Abstract Background Previous meta-analyses have investigated the relative safety and efficacy profiles of different types of drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS); however, most prior trials in these meta-analyses reported follow-up to only 1 year, and as such, the relative long-term safety and efficacy of these devices are unknown. Many recent studies have now reported extended follow-up data. Objectives This study sought to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of durable polymer-based DES, bioabsorbable polymer-based biolimus-eluting stents (BES), and BMS by means of network meta-analysis. Methods Randomized controlled trials comparing DES to each other or to BMS were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases and proceedings of international meetings. Information on study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample characteristics, and clinical outcomes was extracted. Results Fifty-one trials that included a total of 52,158 randomized patients with follow-up duration ≥3 years were analyzed. At a median follow-up of 3.8 years, cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (EES) were associated with lower rates of mortality, definite stent thrombosis (ST), and myocardial infarction than BMS, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and less ST than BES. Phosphorylcholine-based zotarolimus-eluting stents had lower rates of definite ST than SES and lower rates of myocardial infarction than BMS and PES. The late rates of target-vessel revascularization were reduced with all DES compared with BMS, with cobalt-chromium EES, platinum chromium-EES, SES, and BES also having lower target-vessel revascularization rates than PES. Conclusions After a median follow-up of 3.8 years, all DES demonstrated superior efficacy compared with BMS. Among DES, second-generation devices have substantially improved long-term safety and efficacy outcomes compared with first-generation device

Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus 5 years follow-up from the COMPARE II trial

_Background:_ Drug eluting stents with biodegradable polymers have been developed to address the risk of very late adverse events. Long-term comparison data between the biodegradable polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent (BES; Nobori®) and the second-generation durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent (EES; XIENCE V® or XIENCE PRIME® or PROMUS™) in diabetic patients are scarce. _Methods:_ The COMPARE II trial was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, randomized, all-comers trial which assigned patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a 2:1 fashion to either BES or EES.We analyzed the safety and efficacy outcomes in diabetic patients at 5 year follow-up. The primary pre-specified composite endpoint major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as cardiac death, non-fatal target-vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization (CD-TVR). _Results:_ Out of 2707 study patients, 588 were diabetics of whom 391 were treated with BES and 197 with EES. At 5 years follow-up, MACE occurred in 87 patients in the BES group and in 34 patients in the EES group. Other safety and efficacy endpoints did not differ between stent groups. _Conclusions:_ At 5 years follow-up, no differences in terms of MACE as well as all analyzed safety and efficacy measures, including stent thrombosis, between the biodegradable polymer-coated BES and the durable polymercoated EES in diabetic patients were observe

Direct Stenting versus Conventional Stenting in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction—A COMPARE CRUSH Sub-Study

Background: Direct stenting (DS) compared with conventional stenting (CS) after balloon predilatation may reduce distal embolization during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), thereby improving tissue reperfusion. In contrast, DS may increase the risk of stent underexpansion and target lesion failure. Methods:In this sub-study of the randomized COMPARE CRUSH trial (NCT03296540), we reviewed the efficacy of DS versus CS in a cohort of contemporary, pretreated ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary PCI. We compared DS versus CS, assessing (1) stent diameter in the culprit lesion, (2) thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow in the infarct-related artery post-PCI and complete ST-segment resolution (STR) one-hour post-PCI, and (3) target lesion failure at one year. For proportional variables, propensity score weighting was applied to account for potential treatment selection bias. Results: This prespecified sub-study included 446 patients, of whom 189 (42%) were treated with DS. Stent diameters were comparable between groups (3.2 ± 0.5 vs. 3.2 ± 0.5 mm, p = 0.17). Post-PCI TIMI 3 flow and complete STR post-PCI rates were similar between groups (DS 93% vs. CS 90%, adjusted OR 1.16 [95% CI, 0.56–2.39], p = 0.69, and DS 72% vs. CS 58%, adjusted OR 1.29 [95% CI 0.77–2.16], p = 0.34, respectively). Moreover, target lesion failure rates at one year were comparable (DS 2% vs. 1%, adjusted OR 2.93 [95% CI 0.52–16.49], p = 0.22). Conclusion:In this contemporary pretreated STEMI cohort, we found no difference in early myocardial reperfusion outcomes between DS and CS. Moreover, DS seemed comparable to CS in terms of stent diameter and one-year vessel patency.</p

The value of computed tomography for head trauma in patients presenting with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest before emergency percutaneous coronary intervention

INTRODUCTION: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) caused by an ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is often accompanied by a sudden loss of consciousness that may cause the patient to collapse with resulting head trauma, leading to a suspicion of possible intracranial haemorrhage. To rule out intracranial haemorrhage before emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), emergency computed tomography (CT) of the head might be useful but also causes a delay in percutaneous STEMI treatment. METHODS: The medical records of all adult patients that presented with OHCA to the emergency department (ED) of the University Medical Centre Utrecht (UMCU), the Netherlands between 16 February 2020 and 16 February 2022 were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 263 patients presented to the ED with an OHCA; 50 presented with a STEMI requiring emergency PCI. Thirty-nine (78%) patients with a STEMI were immediately referred to the catheterisation laboratory and 11 (22%) STEMI patients underwent a CT scan prior to emergency angiography; in no case was PCI deferred on the basis of the CT findings. The dominant indication for CT of the head was collapse, reported by 10 patients and resulting in a visible traumatic head injury in 7 patients. In none of the patients was intracranial haemorrhage detected. However, there was a delay between presentation to the ED and arrival at the catheterisation laboratory in patients who underwent CT of the head (mean 63 ± 25 min) before emergency PCI compared to patients without a CT scan (mean 37 ± 21 min). CONCLUSION: CT of the head did not result in a diagnosis of intracranial haemorrhage or deferral of PCI but did delay PCI treatment for STEMI in patients presenting with OHCA

COMPARE LAAO: Rationale and design of the randomized controlled trial "COMPARing Effectiveness and safety of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion to standard of care for atrial fibrillation patients at high stroke risk and ineligible to use oral anticoagulation therapy"

Contains fulltext : 252137.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) provides an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). In patients with a long-term or permanent contraindication for OAC randomized controlled trial (RCT) data is lacking. STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of LAAO in AF patients who are ineligible to use OAC. The co-primary efficacy endpoint is (1) time to first occurrence of stroke (ischemic, hemorrhagic, or undetermined) and (2) time to first occurrence of the composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and systemic embolism (SE). The primary safety endpoint is the 30-day rate of peri-procedural complications. STUDY DESIGN: This is a multicenter, investigator-initiated, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE), superiority-driven RCT. Patients with AF, a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score ≥2 for men and ≥3 for women and a long-term or permanent contraindication for OAC will be randomized in a 2:1 fashion to the device- or control arm. Patients in the device arm will undergo percutaneous LAAO and will receive post-procedural dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) per protocol, while those in the control arm will continue their current treatment consisting of no antithrombotic therapy or (D)APT as deemed appropriate by the primary responsible physician. In this endpoint-driven trial design, assuming a 50% lower stroke risk of LAAO compared to conservative treatment, 609 patients will be followed for a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5 years. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses will be performed to allow decision-making on reimbursement of LAAO for the target population in the Netherlands. SUMMARY: The COMPARE LAAO trial will investigate the clinical superiority in preventing thromboembolic events and cost-effectiveness of LAAO in AF patients with a high thromboembolic risk and a contraindication for OAC use. NCT TRIAL NUMBER: NCT04676880

Final 5-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Everolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice the COMPARE Trial (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice)

Objectives This study sought to report the 5-year outcomes of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in an all-comers population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background The medium-term 1 and 2-year results of the prospective randomized COMPARE trial (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice) showed superior clinical outcomes with EES compared with PES in an all-comers PCI population. Whether this benefit is sustained over longer-term follow-up is unknown. Furthermore, systematic long-term follow-up data on these metallic drug eluting stents with durable polymers are scarce. Methods We randomly assigned 1,800 patients undergoing PCI to EES or PES. The pre-specified composite primary endpoint was death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results Follow-up at 5 years was completed in 1,791 (99.5%) patients. Treatment with EES compared with PES led to a relative risk reduction of the primary endpoint by 27% (18.4% vs. 25.1%, p = 0.0005), driven by lower rates of MI (7.0% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.001) and TVR (7.4% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.003), but not with mortality (9.0% vs. 10.3%, relative risk 0.88, p = 0.36). Moreover, patients treated with EES compared with PES had lower rates of definite/probable stent thrombosis at 5 years (3.1% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.005). The hazard curves for TVR, MI, and stent thrombosis diverge over the first 3 years and, subsequently, progress in parallel. Conclusions The early- and medium-term superiority of EES over PES measured both by safety and efficacy endpoints is sustained at 5 years in this all-comer population. (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice [COMPARE]; NCT01016041)